AC 2011-112: THE UNITED STATESBRAZIL ENGINEERING EXCHANGE PROGRAM: LESSONS LEARNED

Aurenice Menezes Oliveira, Michigan Technological University

Dr. Aurenice Oliveira is an Assistant Professor in the Electrical Engineering Technology program at Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, since 2007. She received the B.Sc. degree in Elec- trical Engineering from the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), Salvador, , in 1995, the M.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering from the State University of (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil, in 1998, and the Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA, in 2005. Dr. Oliveira has taught several classes in Electrical Engineering and Mathematics Departments at Michigan Tech, North Dakota State University, and at Minnesota State University, Moor- head. Dr. Oliveira current interests include optical fiber communication systems, Monte Carlo simulations, digital signal processing, wireless communications, and engineering education. She has au- thored or co-authored 14 archival journal publications and 35 conference contributions. From 2007-2011 Dr. Oliveira is serving as the Michigan Tech project director of the U.S.-Brazil Engineering Education Consortium on Renewable Energy funded by FIPSE from the U.S. Department of Education. Dr. Oliveira is an ABET evaluator, and serve as panelist for NSF projects. Dr. Oliveira has also been contributing to several STEM K-12 outreach initiatives, and to the NSF-ADVANCE initiative at Michigan Technological University. Dr. Oliveira is a member of the IEEE Photonics Society, the IEEE Women in Engineering Society, and the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE).

Ivan T. Lima Jr., Department of Electrical and , North Dakota State University

Dr. Ivan T. Lima, Jr., received the B.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering from the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), Salvador, Brazil, in 1995, the M.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering from the State (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil, in 1998, and the Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering in the field of photonics from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA, in 2003. In 2003, Dr. Lima became a faculty member in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA, where he is currently an Associate Professor with tenure. Dr. Lima is a senior member of the IEEE Photonics Society and of the IEEE EMBS society. In 2006, Dr. Lima was as a Faculty Fellow in the 2006 U.S. Air Force Summer Faculty Fellowship Program in the Air Force Research Laboratory in Dayton, OH. Dr. Lima research interests have been devoted to optical communications, optical coherence tomography, volumetric displays, and biomedical engineering. Page 22.1507.1

c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 The United States − Brazil Engineering Exchange Program: Lessons Learned

Abstract:

Nowadays, engineering graduates are required to work in an increasingly globalized world, where most large engineering projects currently require multi-national teams of multi- disciplinary professionals to work together and, therefore, a better understanding of the global economy, communication skills, cultural awareness, and interpersonal skills are critical to engineers. In this context, universities around the world are increasingly moving to establish international partnerships in their educational and research programs.

One of the main purposes of international programs is to provide students value-added technical and cultural experiences. Study abroad programs are recognized as high-impact educational experiences. However, engineering students typically do not have the same variety of offerings of international program as students of other disciplines have, such as humanities or students. In this paper, the authors provide an overview of the critical aspects of developing a consortium among two universities in the U.S. and two Brazilian universities with the goal of establishing a self-sustainable student exchange program in undergraduate engineering education, and to increase the participation of U.S. students in international experiences. The activities in this program include the establishment of an agreement between the institutions, the implementation of a transfer process, and the development of a procedure for foreign language training and cultural preparation. In addition, we also discuss the key lessons learned over the first three years of the program.

Our program is under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) on the U.S. side, and under the auspices of the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) of the Brazilian Ministry of Education, on the Brazilian side.

1. Introduction

Global markets are currently dictating the way that national economies around the world design, distribute, and consumer goods and services. As a result, engineering education has to be tailored to the needs of the current globalized world. Industry has begun to respond to the transformation by redefining business strategies and with new expectations for the new set of skills of engineers. According to the literature1-12, engineering students who have international study experiences are more likely to be hired and prepared for the global market place. Moreover, ABET accreditation Criteria 3H has a specific learning outcome for globalization, stating that “engineering students must have a broad education to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context.” Study abroad programs are recognized as high- impact educational experiences. Engineering graduates will be integrally involved with the globalization of engineering during their course of their careers by working in multinational companies, often having foreign-born coworkers, working with international suppliers, providing services to international product markets, or developing products that have an international market13. Page 22.1507.2 This changing nature of the world economy makes it essential to provide our students with the cross-cultural tools to become successful professionals in the global workplace; the need to prepare students to contribute to the global workplace is unquestionable. In this context, the new profile of an engineer requires new set of skills; the list of competences for engineers might include more attributes besides the technical knowledge required for each major1, 7, 13, 14. This list of attributes includes: an engineer must understand and accept diversity; be creative in the solution of problems impacting a wider and more diverse population; be able to communicate and socialize with people from different cultures; be knowledgeable of other languages; be able to use the technology to exchange ideas, solve problems and present solutions in a global context; be a leader; a team member; and an ambassador, among others1, 7, 13, 14. However, preparing engineering students with all the previously mentioned attributes is no small task given that engineering programs are already overloaded with credits, content, and other demands. In Parkinson et al. 14, the authors proposed 13 attributes of global competence, and present results of a survey conducted among people from academia and industry on the relative importance of these 13 attributes. Based on the result of this survey, the five most important attributes of global competences are that engineering graduates:

1. Can appreciate other cultures; 2. Are proficient working in or directing a team of ethnic and cultural diversity; 3. Are able to communicate across cultures; 4. Have had a chance to practice engineering in a global context, whether through an international internship, a service-learning opportunity; a virtual global engineering project or some other form of experience; 5. Can effectively deal with ethical issues arising from cultural or national differences.

In addition, the industry respondents of the survey indicated the importance of global competence for engineering graduates to be between “highly desirable” and “essential.”

In 2004 and 2005, the U.S. National Academy of Engineering published two reports, The Engineer of 2020 3, and Educating the Engineer of 2020 4. Both reports stress the impact of globalization on the practice of engineering and the need for U.S. engineers to focus on innovation and creative aspects of the profession to be globally competitive. The challenges and opportunities in forming global engineers for the Americas were also discussed in a recent workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Latin American and Caribbean Consortium of Engineering Institutions (LACCEI) 8. In October 2006, representatives of 31 organizations in 10 countries gathered in Brazil to launch the International Federation of Engineering Education Societies (IFEES), recognizing the need for well trained and culturally sensitive engineers12, 17. IFEES mission is to establish effective and high quality engineering education processes to assure a global supply of well prepared engineering graduates17.

In this paper, the authors provide an overview of the critical aspects of developing a consortium among two universities in the U.S. and two Brazilian universities with the goal of establishing a

self-sustainable student exchange program in undergraduate engineering education, and to Page 22.1507.3 increase the participation of U.S. students in international experiences. The activities in this program include the establishment of an agreement between the institutions, the implementation of a course transfer process, and the development of a procedure for foreign language training and cultural preparation. In addition, we also discuss the key lessons learned over the first three years of the program.

2. The U.S. – Brazil Engineering Exchange Program

The partner institutions of the exchange program described in this paper are Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Michigan, and North Dakota State University in Fargo, North Dakota. The partners Institutions in Brazil are Universidade Federal do Pará in Belém, State of Pará, and Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp) in Campinas, State of São Paulo. The Universidade Federal do Pará is the largest and most influential institution in Brazil’s Amazon region, and the Universidade Estadual de Campinas is a leading with an annual operating budget of 500 million U.S. dollars. The consortium was formed by these particular four institutions mainly due to existing links between the program directors.

The U.S. – Brazil Engineering Exchange Program described here has four phases in its development, execution and long-term support. The preparation phase occurred in the first year of the program, Oct. 2007 - Sept. 2008, and was reported in Oliveira, et al.18. The execution phase is the phase the student exchanges occur, Oct. 2008 - Sep. 2011, which is reported in this paper, in addition to evaluation, and sustainability phases.

2.1. Program execution phase:

In this phase the actual exchanges occur. The activities included in this phase are:

z Assess the language skills of the exchange students and make adjustments to the language preparation;

z Provide mentoring to the exchange students to facilitate their adaptation to the foreign environment;

z Cooperate with the industrial partners to pursue the offering of internships and cooperative education opportunities for the exchange students.

2.2. Program evaluation phase:

Program evaluation determines the extent to which program outcomes (described in Section 4) have been achieved, and the effectiveness of the modifications implemented during the execution phase to improve the program. Internal and external evaluations are conducted at least once a year, and include students and instructor interviews, grade examinations, and feedback from the research labs and companies employing student interns. Performance indicators were collaboratively established between the partners and summarized in a previous publication18. Success indicators of the U.S. – Brazil exchange program have been collaboratively established between the partners, as follows:

1. The number of students that participated in the program; Page 22.1507.4 2. The academic performance of the participating students during the academic exchange; 3. The satisfaction of the students that participated in the program; 4. The satisfaction of the faculty that participated and contributed to the program; and 5. The satisfaction of the industries providing internships, and of the student interns.

In addition to these quantitative measures gathered by the in-house Advisory Board, an independent external evaluator conducts formative assessment during the whole duration of the program. The assessment methods and tools used for the program include direct and indirect measures.

2.3. Program sustainability phase:

Assessment of the performance obtained in the evaluation phase allows the participating institutions to better prepare and advise future exchange students. An integral component of the program sustainability is the development of an effective language and cultural preparation for the exchange students. In order to continue the student exchange once the scholarships are no longer available, we intend to extend the program to other majors, and to work with the university to continue exchange students at a one-to-one exchange basis. Through extensive advising and careful preparation students are able to take course work at the host institution and transfer the credits to their home institutions. This enables exchange students to make progress towards their degree to avoid delays in their graduation. The faculty and staff involved in the program of all four institutions would continue to provide support and advising for students. More detail on the sustainability phase of this program will be described in the next section of this paper.

3. Program Objectives

The main objective of the U.S.– Brazil exchange program is to overcome curriculum, linguistic and cultural differences between students and faculty members in engineering and technology programs in the U.S. and Brazil to promote a self-sustainable academic exchange between the two countries with emphasis in the area of renewable energy sources. To do so, the faculty members perform curriculum study with the goal of achieving credit equivalence for the exchange students. The staff provides adequate support to the students, and the regional industry and academic research laboratories facilitate student internships. This process will ultimately lead to the education of engineers and technologists that have an understanding of the technical norms and the business environment in both countries. The detailed main program objectives are:

z Establish a process to assess course equivalency between American and Brazilian institutions;

z Establish a process for the selection and preparation of the students for the exchange through a language and cultural training program, including both on-line and regular classes with an immersion session in the host country before the start of classes;

z Identify and correct potential difficulties with the adaptation of the students while they are in the host country through an active mentoring program; Page 22.1507.5 z Promote opportunities for the exchange students that can lead to the sustainability of the program; z Disseminate the knowledge acquired during the exchange to facilitate the establishment of other U.S. - Brazil university consortia of higher education.

3.1 Activities taken place for each objective:

• Establish a process to assess course equivalency between American and Brazilian institutions;

The institutional partners have identified a set of courses in the four institutions that are equivalent to each other. A matrix with all the equivalent courses was established and has been used as reference. Other courses may be transferred between institutions provided that there is a significant amount of similarity in the course content. Students have been able to transfer courses among the four institutions without any major issue.

• Establish a process for the selection and preparation of the students for the exchange through a language and cultural training program, including both on-line and regular classes with an immersion session in the host country before the start of classes;

The institutional partners have established a selection process based on student resume, essay, transcripts, GPA, language skills, motivation to learn another language and culture, and interview outcome. American students can start their language preparation at NDSU and at Michigan Tech several weeks before their departure to Brazil. The pre-departure language preparation is based on Rosetta Stone Software: Version 3, Levels 1 and 2. The students arrive in Brazil and start intensive Portuguese training 6 weeks before the start of classes. In addition, they have regular Portuguese classes during the academic semester while in Brazil. So far, six out of seven Michigan Tech students participating in the program during Spring 2009, Fall 2009, Spring 2010, and Fall 2010 have learned Portuguese sufficiently well to succeed in their engineering classes and interact with professors, with other students, and with the local population. Five NDSU engineering students took part in student exchange in Brazil during Fall 2009, Spring 2010, and Fall 2010, in which all the classes were taught in Portuguese.

• Identify and correct potential difficulties with the adaptation of the students while they are in the host country through an active mentoring program;

Faculty and staff members involved in the program are actively providing mentoring for students. The students from Brazil to Michigan Tech didn’t have any major adaptation issues. The majority of the Brazilian students that came to Michigan Tech so far had excellent academic performance taking 12 and 13 credits with very good GPAs. One of the reasons for the smooth transition between Brazilian educational system and USA educational system was the fact that the Brazilian students already had fairly good English proficiency. They interacted very well with classmates, especially with international students. A survey taken by all the exchange students from Brazil revealed that they were Page 22.1507.6 impressed with the organization, and infrastructure that Michigan Tech and North Dakota State University had to offer to domestic and international students. The adaptation of the American students’ participants of the program in Spring 2009, Fall 2009, and Spring 2010 was not as smooth mainly due to language issues. However, the American students’ (with exception of one) quickly adapted to the Brazilian way of life, and were able to learn Portuguese during the intensive class six weeks prior to the beginning of the academic semester and regular Portuguese classes during the academic semester while taking engineering classes. In order to facilitate the adaptation of the American students in Belem, UFPA identified a host family to provide housing for both students who went to UFPA. The program coordinators and the Office of International Programs of both institutions also provided active mentoring for the students.

• Disseminate the knowledge acquired during the exchange to facilitate the establishment of other U.S. – Brazil University consortia of higher education;

To disseminate the knowledge acquired during the exchange, we have created a website, and have published articles about the program in conferences and meetings, in addition to presentations on participant institutions campuses.

• Promote opportunities for the exchange students that can lead to the sustainability of the program;

We are assisting the exchange students in their pursuit of assistantships in partner institution labs, and possible internships in regional industry. In Fall 2010, one MTU student took advantage of the program structure to extend the length of his exchange without receiving any additional stipend. This exchange student participated in a paid internship in a laboratory facility at a partner institution during Fall 2010, extending his academic exchange in Brazil from six months to one full year. We are also assisting American students to obtain housing from host families, in some cases families of former Brazilian participants in the program.

4. Program Outcomes

The U.S. – Brazil exchange program is expected to produce multiple long term benefits for participants. At the conclusion of this program, the following outcomes related to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that participants will acquire as they progress through this program are expected:

1. Provide students with the language, culture, technical, and business skills to work for international companies; 2. Create course articulation agreements that transfer credit between participating institutions; 3. Develop a system for linguistic and cultural preparation for students participating in the foreign exchange; 4. Provide industry with culturally and technically proficient professionals qualified to work in several locations for multi-national companies; Page 22.1507.7 5. Document results of successful relationships between program participants (students, institution administration, participant faculty, industry advisory committee) that lead to educational and disciplinary research; 6. Develop outreach activities to make the program better known inside and outside the consortium. These activities include: development of program website, publishing and presenting conference papers, giving talks at both the home and host institutions.

In addition, the program seeks to improve the quality of teaching and student learning. Students participating in this exchange have the opportunity to experience a different culture and learn a different language. Language learning is highly correlated to a better understanding of the local culture2. Language skill is considered as a key element for the success of this program. Moreover, the engineering students have access to classrooms and laboratories in a foreign country, and have an opportunity to learn about similarities and differences on how engineering is taught elsewhere. The students also have the opportunity to be involved in one or more research projects carried out in several research laboratories at UFPA and at Unicamp on renewable sources of energy and on biofuels. This experience is expected to have a positive impact on the professional careers of the students, and also give them a better understanding, appreciation, and respect for the diversity of values existing in different cultures. 5. Student participation

The students participating in the program are junior (third-year) or later in their engineering or technology major. The disciplines included in the exchange are electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering technology. Preference is given to students with interest in the area of renewable sources of energy. Each program director in the consortium is responsible in his or her institution for recruiting, providing language training, and advising their students and the guest students in the exchange at their institution. For that purpose, all the partners follow similar procedures. The program directors advise both outgoing and incoming students in the exchange at their institution.

The exchange of students occurs at a one-to-one exchange basis, with tuition obligations covered at the home institution and a simple exchange of students which must balance out over the long run. Students pay tuition at home, but room and board costs at the host institution. The American students selected for awards receive a US$4,500 stipend to pay for expenses (Airline ticket, housing, etc), $1,000 of which is applied towards training. The US$4,500 stipend is per student, and is entirely covered by the FIPSE grant in the U.S. side. The institutions in the U.S. and in Brazil do not contribute with funds for this program. From previous students’ experiences, approximately US$2,000 is left for room and board, which is enough to cover most of the students’ expenses for one semester (including the six weeks of intensive language training). If the student stays for an additional semester, he or she needs to cover his/her own expenses by taking an internship in an academic faculty-led laboratory or in the local industry. One of our students worked as an English instructor in his second semester in Brazil.

So far, 15 Brazilian students from UFPA and Unicamp participated in the student exchange at NDSU and at MTU since Fall 2008, and a total of 7 students from MTU and 5 students from Page 22.1507.8 NDSU participated in the program since Spring 2009. Two of the U.S. students were female, representing 17% of the U.S. students. We didn’t specifically target female sudents for this program. The program goal is to send 18 engineering students from NDSU and MTU to UFPA and UNICAMP and receive 18 studens from the two Brazilian institutions. This target is expected to be completed in year 4 of the program, which is still ongoing. Because the fiscal year starts in October 1st, the last cohort of exchange students in the fouth year will include students that are going to participate in the exchange in Fall 2011. To our knowledge, the participation in the program did not delay the graduation for any of the students.

An exchange program is beneficial not only to the students going abroad but also to the students of the host institutions. Home students benefit from an international perspective by having international visiting students in their classes and laboratories. In addition, the home campuses also benefit from the return of the students to the home campus, since they share their international experience with home university peers.

6. Feedback from participating students

Each student participating in the program write a final report on the overall program participation, which includes description of the courses taken, language improvement, cultural proficiency, difficulties, and suggestions for program improvement. The summary of the students’ comments in different categories follows below:

Facilities: Students stated that libraries, laboratories, classrooms are accessible for furthering one’s education at both Brazilian institutions. Both Brazilian institutions have one main library for all with access to educational and fictional books from Harry Potter to Engineering. In addition, each course department has their own library for students. These libraries have books specific for classes and furthering knowledge outside of the classroom. Some of the facilities such as libraries and laboratories have wireless internet. The classrooms are adequately set-up for teaching students; however, professors usually need to bring in their own white board markers and erasers.

Teaching: Like the Brazilian students, the American students also found that the instruction levels in the U.S. and Brazil are comparable. The atmosphere in the classrooms, however, is much different than in US, it is very casual and comfortable between the professor and students. The students feel comfortable asking questions without hesitation in the classroom. On the down side, it is difficult to catch a professor outside of the class since there are no office-hours scheduled by the professors. The engineering classes offered are normally the same that are offered in the U.S. The classes in both countries usually cover the same material from the same books in the same amount of time. Negative points considered by the students – homework are not graded, and sometimes professors miss classes without warning.

Language Skills: FIPSE exchange students have language skills assessed based on their academic performance in their engineering classes taken in Brazil, final exchange report written in Portuguese and English, and interview in Portuguese with faculty advisors in the U.S. The faculty advisors on the U.S. side are both fluent in English and in Portuguese. The Michigan Tech students that already participated in the program were interviewed in

Portuguese by their academic advisor/program director and demonstrated to be mastering the Page 22.1507.9 Portuguese language at an intermediate to advanced level. However, most of the students related their struggle with the language barrier in the first weeks of the program. Cultural experience: The consensus among American students is that the experience is a unique opportunity for them to experience new culture and be exposed to new ideas. The students also agree that in general like to help foreigners as much as they can, and are in general more open than people in the U.S. On the other hand, there are some negative habits in the Brazilian culture such as cutting lines in public places, in addition to the fact that the lines are everywhere such as in banks, public offices, etc. The American students enjoyed the opportunity to travel to different places in Brazil, and to try new types of food. Since Brazilian institutions don’t have dormitories, students that don’t live with their parents (very common if the university is in the same city in which their parents live), they normally live in houses called “Republics.” Republics are big houses with several students (usually 5-10, only male or only female). Our exchange students have lived either in Republics or with host families.

Negative points: Students pointed out that the mismatch between academic calendars in the U.S. and in the Brazilian Institutions posed an additional hurdle to our American students. The process to obtain student visa is still lengthy, requiring many documents, and plenty of time for the application. Portuguese language training should start in the U.S. several months before students travel to Brazil.

7. Program Assessment

The assessment methods and tools used for the program include direct and indirect measures. For each of the surveys (indirect measures), a consistent numeric scale is used to provide a means of comparing the collected data between the administered surveys. In addition, student performance (direct measures) is converted to the same scale for consistency. In Table 1 we provide a summary of student responses to the 21 survey questions. Responses with a mean of 3 or higher indicate student satisfaction with that particular item. It also indicates that they felt that most of the exchange program learning outcomes had been achieved satisfactorily. There are 14 items falling in this category, indicating that overall student participants (Spring 2008 – Spring 2010) were satisfied with their experiences.

The highest survey ratings by students were given to questions relating to the impact the exchange program had on their understanding of different cultures and perspectives. In addition, students were confident in their abilities to work in multi-national teams and in emerging industrialized context. Thus, the outcomes of this program, which include overcoming curriculum, linguistic and cultural differences between students in engineering and technology programs in the U.S. and Brazil, and provide industry with culturally and technically proficient professionals qualified to work in several locations for multi-national companies were met by the program.

Students gave their highest ratings to the following specific learning outcomes: 1. Recognition that there are different ways to achieve goals (mean = 3.7); 2. Respect that one approach to solving a problem is not necessarily better than another (mean = 3.7); 3. Understanding and value of different cultural perspectives (mean = 3.7); Page 22.1507.10 4. Ability to work in a multinational engineering team (mean = 3.9); 5. Confidence to travel abroad and operate effectively in a foreign country (mean = 3.7); 6. Ability to work with different cultures and ethnicities (mean = 3.9); 7. Understanding of the meaning of ‘global economy’ (mean = 3.7); 8. Awareness of technical constraint differences that exist between a highly industrialized country and an emerging industrialized country (mean = 3.7); 9. Confidence in being assigned to work in an emerging industrialized country (mean = 3.7);

Table 1: Summary of student responses to survey questions. (Survey questions based on survey conducted by North Carolina State University U.S.-Brazil Consortia Program 2002-2007).

Student rating on item: 4 = strongly agree, 3 = agree, 2 = disagree, 1= Mean strongly disagree 1. The goals of the exchange program were clear. 3.0 2. I believe the program goals were met as a result of my participation in the 3.3 exchange program. 3. The funds available to me through the exchange program and my regular 2.9 funding sources were sufficient to cover my expenses. 4. I learned sufficient Portuguese prior to, in the initial phase of my 2.9 exchange visit, and during my visit to enable me to communicate effectively. 5. The program activities prior to my exchange prepared me adequately for 2.6 what to expect. 6. I graduated (or am on track to graduate) within the time frame I originally 3.2 anticipated. 7. I had sufficient contact with the international office at my USA institution 2.9 during my time in Brazil. 8. I had sufficient contact with the faculty at my USA institution during my 2.9 time in Brazil. 9. My stay in Brazil helped me to recognize that there are different ways to 3.7 accomplish a goal. 10. Because of the exchange, I respect that one approach to solving a 3.7 problem is not necessarily better than another. 11. I better understand different cultural perspectives and values because of 3.7 my stay in Brazil. 12. Because of the exchange experiences, I would be able to work in a 3.9 multi-national engineering design team. 13. The experience increased my confidence to travel abroad and operate 3.7 effectively in a foreign country. 14. The experience increased my confidence to work among different 3.9 cultures and ethnicities. 15. I learned new technological tools for use in engineering. 2.9 16. I have a better appreciation for global issues. 3.6 17. I have a better understanding of the meaning of ‘global economy’. 3.7 18. I have a good insight into other technical cultures and perspectives as a 3.4 result of the exchange. 19. I became aware of technical constraint differences that exist between a 3.7 highly industrialized country and an emerging industrialized country. 20. I would feel confident being assigned by my employer to work on a 3.7 project in an emerging industrialized country because of my exchange 21. I would do it all again. 3.9 Page 22.1507.11

Survey questions which had student responses ranging between agree and disagree (mean between 2 and 3) were related to the sufficiency of the funds available for the exchange, Portuguese preparation prior to exchange, degree of preparation prior to exchange, and contact with International Office and faculty at their home institution in the U.S. The language barrier was overcome by most of the students, who learned Portuguese sufficiently well to succeed in their engineering classes and interact with professors, with other students, and with the local population.

8. Lessons learned and hurdles:

In this session, we wish to share a few observations based on the efforts to build this program over the past three years. A summary of the hurdles encountered in the first year of the program were reported in Oliveira et al. 18. Some of the lessons learned by our program collaborators are similar to what was observed by other programs such as the program described in Grandin19.

8.1. Bureaucracy in the institutions: The bureaucracy in the institutions, which delayed the approval of the Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) for the student exchange at undergraduate level in engineering and in engineering technology. Each participating institution in the U.S. had a separate Memorandum of Understanding with each participating institution in Brazil, totalizing four documents.

8.2. Cross disciplinary collaboration and commitment: Building cross disciplinary programs and achieve equivalency in junior and senior level courses to enable the exchange students to use those credits towards a degree requires innovation and collaboration among faculty and staff members who are not necessarily accustomed to working together. For this to happen, people across campus, need to work together, and commit a significant amount of time and effort to the program.

8.3. Difference in academic calendars, housing, and visa issues: The mismatch between academic calendars in the U.S. and in the Brazilian institutions and the lack of dedicated housing for exchange students, especially in the Brazilian universities since Brazil doesn’t have the culture of on-campus housing. In addition, the difficulty and necessary paperwork needed for Brazilian students to obtain U.S. visa in American embassies and to take the English placement tests. Because of the difference in academic calendars, it is more difficult to have American students joining the program during Fall semesters since they would have to leave the U.S. during the summer (end of June) to be able to have language training prior to the beginning of classes, and follow the Brazilian academic calendar. Many students, however, prefer to participate in internships, co-ops, or have summer jobs.

8.4. Recruitment of good students: Because the concept of bilingual American engineers is still relatively new, it cannot be assumed that large numbers of students will enroll in engineering study abroad programs without active encouragement. The second language is still a large barrier for American students to overcome, even considering that our program will provide language training and doesn’t require prior Portuguese knowledge. Any engineering study abroad programs, therefore, must rely on an active advertising, promotion, and recruitment program. Page 22.1507.12 Recruitment efforts consisting of email messages to students email lists, brochures to food court, sport facilities, and other places at university with high concentration of students of several majors. Newspaper advertisements, class announcements, journal advertisements, web sites, and even word of mouth are a part of the regular cycle.

8.5. A long-term commitment: An international exchange engineering program requires a long-term commitment and a steady and sustained effort. As we now complete our third−year of program building, there is still much work to be done. Though significant progress has been made in many aspects of the program, there is no assurance that the program would survive without the continuous efforts of its key advocates, its faculty and staff. Each year, a new group of good students should join the program, each year the program coordinators need to work on retention rates by motivating and supporting students, and encouraging them to maintain their own long-term perspectives. Each year, a new group of interns needs to be placed, scholarship funds needs to be generated, language training must be effective, all the paperwork for admission and visa must be generated in a timely fashion, and so on.

8.6. External funding: International programs are labor intensive, and require many activities beyond the normal routine of the academic year. Faculty need to travel to develop internships, to maintain relationships with the private sector, to visit students on site during their internships, to recruit and to develop study abroad opportunities. An international engineering program relies mostly on external funding for their development. Once the program is established, it is easier to maintain a more program less dependent on external funds. However, it is not feasible to run a 100% sustainable program in engineering, especially considering language training costs, air line tickets, and other expenses. As previously described in the end of Section 3.1, we are considering an alternative path in order to continue to support student mobility when federal funding is no longer available to support the program.

8.7. Faculty rewards: While participation in this program is a gratifying experience, it is important to mention that working in such a program requires a substantial time investment. Faculty members working on this program need to dedicate a large number of working hours to the program, which may result in time reduction to work on other scholarly activities. A large amount of the grant is dedicated to travel expenses for faculty, and to pay for students’ stipends. Only a small amount is used to cover summer salaries. The grant only covers one or two weeks (depending on the program year) of summer salary for the PIs. One additional benefit of a program like this one is faculty research collaboration. The program director from NDSU is taking his sabbatical year of 2011 at Unicamp collaborating with another program director in a specific research area in Electrical Engineering. The faculty member from NDSU is not covered by the FIPSE grant for this trip. Overall, the authors of this paper believe that the benefits of such collaboration outweigh the difficulties.

9. Summary

We provided an overview of the critical aspects of developing an international engineering educational partnership, as well as the key lessons learned over the first three-year of the program. Feedback from student participants in the program indicates that the program has achieved most of its goals. Despite the “ups and downs” common in any long-term program, students have classified the experience as having excellent elements of culture and learning, and Page 22.1507.13 being an “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity. They also pointed out that the experience also helped them to learn more about themselves. 10. Acknowledgements

The contents of this manuscript were developed under a grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), U.S. Department of Education. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. More information about the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) international programs and how to submit proposals can be found at the FIPSE homepage20.

References

[1] I. Esparragoza, R. Devon, “Forming global engineers: a freshman engineering design course with a multinational design project involving Latin American institutions,” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, paper AC 2007-1188, 2007.

[2] Global Engineering Study: “Four Recommendations and a Call for Action.” Retrieved on August 2008 from http://www.global-engineering-excellence.org

[3] National Academies of Engineering, “The Engineer of 2020: Vision of Engineering in the New Century,” National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2004.

[4] National Academies of Engineering, “The Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century,” National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2005.

[5] R. Echempati, B. Michael “Mechanical engineering study abroad programs in Germany-experiences and lessons learned,” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, paper AC 2007-640, 2007.

[6] C. Brito, M. Ciampi, V. Zakharov, I. Avenarius, “The role of International Cooperation in the Promotion of New Approaches in Engineering Education Worldwide,” ASEE-IEEE Frontier in Education Conference Proceedings, paper S1D-23, 2005.

[7] Z. Gephardt, J. Wyrick, D. Kuzan,C. Braun, J. Krause, D. Santino, M. Wellspeak, “Developing Global Engineers: An Integrated Approach to International Projects,” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, paper AC 2007-3074, 2007.

[8] I. Esparragoza, M. Petrie, D. Sathianathan, “Global Engineering Education in the Americas: Challenges and opportunities,” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, paper AC 2008-437, 2008.

[9] A. Casey, E. Bratschitsh, A. Sadler, “Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: Strategies for Improving International Experience and Employability Skills of Undergraduate Students of Vehicle Engineering,” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, paper AC 2008-2314, 2008.

[10] M. Clauss, B. Allison, M. Reuber, S. Birmingham, V. DiStasi, “A Successful Model for Engineers Stuying Abroad: A Foreign Study Center with Concurrent Instruction,” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, paper AC 2008-1743, 2008.

[11] M. Mariasingam, T. Smith, S. Courter, “Internationalization of Engineering Education,” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, paper AC 2008-1144, 2008. Page 22.1507.14

[12] International Federation of Engineering Education Societies (IFEES), Retrieved on August 2008 from http://www.ifees.net/ [13] G. L. Downey, et al., “The Globally Competent Engineer: Working Effectively with People Who Define Problems Differently,” ASEE Journal of Engineering Education, Vol.95, n. 3, pp. 1-16, 2006.

[14] A. Parkinson, J. Harbm and S. Magleby, “Developing Global Competence in Engineers: What Does it mean? What is most important?, ” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, paper AC 2009-571, 2009.

[15] I. Simpson, “International Engineering Education: A French Example,” Engineering Science and Educational Journal, Vol. 9, n.3, pp.99-104, 2000.

[16] N. Fortenberry, “Under the Jeweler’s Loupe: Global Engineering Education,” Computer Applications in Engineering Education, Vol. 4, n.2, pp.169-172, 1996.

[17] L. Morell, et al., “Engineering Education Societies Becoming Global,” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, paper AC 2008-991, 2008.

[18] A. M. Oliveira, et al., “Implementation of an international multidisciplinary engineering education consortium”, 2009 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, TX, USA, June 14-17, 2009, paper AC2009-57, session 1360.

[19] J. Grandin, “Preparing Engineers for the Global Workplace,” Online Journal for Global Engineering Education, Vol. 1, Issue 1, Article 3, 2006.

[20] Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) Home Page, Retrieved on March 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/fipse/index.html Page 22.1507.15